About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

The Procter & Gamble Company v. Privacy Protection Service INC, d/b/a PrivocyProtect.org / Rodot Vokezh

Case No. D2016-0268

1. The Parties

The Complainant is The Procter & Gamble Company of Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Interius, Bulgaria.

The Respondent is Privacy Protection Service INC, d/b/a PrivocyProtect.org of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia / Rodot Vokezh of New Delhi, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <crestbg.com> (the "Domain Name") is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 11, 2016. On February 11, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 12, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 15, 2016, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 16, 2016.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 22, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 13, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 14, 2016.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on March 24, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

It is apparent from the Complainant's website at "www.crest.com" that the Complainant is the manufacturer of the very well-known toothpaste brand Crest. The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous trademark registrations around the world in respect of the mark CREST, including European Union trademark number 273201 registered on February 28, 2000, and Bulgaria trademark number 6161 registered on November 30, 1968.

The Domain Name was registered on August 20, 2015, and resolves to a website in the Bulgarian language selling Crest branded products and other products (the "Website"). The Website is in the Bulgarian language and is substantially a copy of the original Crest website of the Complainant. The Website does not disclose any relationship with the Complainant and carries a link to a Facebook page where the operator of the Website claims that it is the official representative or distributor of the Complainant.

The content of the Website was previously available on the website at "www.crest.bg". On August 11, 2015, the Complainant wrote to the registrant of <crest.bg>, the Bulgarian company Crest Import Ltd, complaining about the content and the use of its CREST mark. The Complainant received a reply on September 4, 2015, stating that the company was no longer the registrant of <crest.bg>. The Domain Name had been registered on August 20, 2015, and the content moved to the Website.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CREST trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has uncontested rights in the trademark CREST, by virtue of its many trademark registrations around the world. The Panel recognizes that the Complainant is also likely to have widespread goodwill and reputation acquired through use of the CREST mark over many years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com", the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Complainant's mark, together with the letters "bg". As the Complainant contends, the letters "bg" may well be taken to be the two letter international code for Bulgaria, and the Panel accepts that this is likely to be the case, particularly if an Internet search returned a link to a website at the Domain Name together with text in the Bulgarian language. The additional letters "bg" should accordingly be regarded as generic and in the Panel's view do not detract from the distinctiveness of the CREST mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. It asserts that the Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant to use the mark CREST in the Domain Name and is certainly not permitted to hold itself out as the authorised distributor of CREST products in Bulgaria. The Respondent was also not authorised to create a website from a substantial copy of the Complainant's website at "www.crest.com" or to offer for sale from the Website products not branded CREST. The Respondent has failed to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant by responding to the Complaint. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

For the same reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith. In view of the use to which the Respondent has put the Domain Name, resolving to the Website where it advertises for sale Crest branded products and other products, the Panel considers it inescapable that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its rights in the CREST mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. Such use is most likely to deceive Internet users into believing that the Domain Name was registered by or with the authority of the Complainant when it was not. The nature of the Website in those circumstances, using the Domain Name for financial gain, amounts to paradigm bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel also accepts that the migration of the content of the Website from the website at "www.crest.bg" just a few days after the Complainant had complained to the registrant of that site, implies bad faith on the part of the Respondent. The Panel accordingly finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <crestbg.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: April 7, 2016

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/